Vectors and Frames of Reference: Evidence from Seri and Yucatec
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vectors and frames of reference: Evidence from Seri and Yucatec Jürgen Bohnemeyer Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo Carolyn O’Meara Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Abstract We show that frames of reference (FoRs) play an equally important role in representations of the orientation of entities as they do in representations of their location and direction of motion. We propose that orientation is conceptually encoded, not in terms of metaphorical path functions (Jackendoff 1983), but in terms of vectors, a separate type of primitive conceptual function. Equipped with the notion of vectors, we introduce a distinction between two classes of FoRs: classical “angular-anchored” FoRs and the previously unrecognized “head-anchored” FoRs. In English, angular-anchored relative FoRs dominate in both locative and orientation descriptions. In contrast, in Seri and Yucatec, two indigenous languages of Mexico, object-centered angular-anchored FoRs dominate in locative descriptions, but head-anchored FoRs dominate in orientation descriptions. Keywords : Frames of reference, location, orientation, Seri, Yucatec 1 Introduction In this paper we discuss the role of spatial frames of reference (FoRs) in location and orientation descriptions. Spatial frames of reference are coordinate systems that partition space into distinct regions which serve as search domains for the interpretation of spatial relators in language and cognition. These relators can be used to locate entities and describe their orientation and motion. Various classifications of FoRs have been proposed. In the psychological literature (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin 1993; Wassmann & Dasen 1998; Li & Gleitman 2002), a ternary classification among egocentric or viewer-centered, intrinsic or object-centered, and geocentric or environment-centered frames is widely used. The basis of this classification is what Danziger 2010 calls the anchor of the FoR: the entity or feature that serves as the model for the axes of the coordinate system. In egocentric FoRs, the anchor is the body of the viewer; in object-centered FoRs, it is the reference entity or ground , and in geocentric FoRs, it is some environmental entity or feature. A different classification was developed by the members of the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the 1990s (Levinson 1996, 2003; Pederson et al. 1998; cf. also Pederson 2003; Danziger 2010). The Nijmegen classification singles out those egocentric FoRs that involve transposition of the coordinate system from the body of the observer onto an external ground as relative . Likewise, a proper subclass of geocentric FoRs are singled out as absolute : those that involve abstraction of the coordinate system from its environmental anchor such that its axes are defined by fixed bearings regardless of where the origin – in locative descriptions always the ground – is located vis-a-vis the anchor. All other FoRs, whether they are egocentric, geocentric, or neither, are grouped into a super-large intrinsic category. Consider the examples in (1)-(2): 1. a. The ball is left/in front of the chair. b. The ball is left/in front of me. 2. a. The ball is toward the door from the chair. b. The ball is seaward from the chair. c. The ball is uphill from the chair. In terms of the traditional psychological classification, (1a) is ambiguous between egocentric and object-centered interpretations, whereas (1b) is unambiguously egocentric. In contrast, following the Nijmegen classification, (1a) is ambiguous between a relative and an intrinsic sense, whereas (1b) is unambiguously intrinsic, not relative, since it does not involve transposition of the coordinate system. The descriptions in (2) are geocentric on the classification preferred in the psychological literature. The frames in (2a) and (2b) are what we call landmark-based in this article: their axes point towards a local landmark, which happens to be human-made in (2a), but a landscape entity in (2b). In contrast, (2c) exhibits what we call a geomorphic FoR: the axis does not point towards the anchor, the hill or mountain, but is transposed or abstracted from the slope of it. In the Nijmegen classification, (2a) is treated as intrinsic, whereas (2b) and (2c) could be either intrinsic or absolute. Suppose the ball and chair, as a configuration, without changing their location and orientation with respect to one another, are moved from a location at which (2b) is true along a straight line to some place on the other side of the ‘sea’. If (2b) continues to be true after this transformation, it is considered absolute; otherwise, it is treated as intrinsic. Similarly, (2c) is considered absolute if it can be true of the same configuration of ball and chair on either side of the mountain and intrinsic otherwise. In reality there are no known dialects of English in which (2b) or (2c) are used absolutely. The Nijmegen classification is motivated by data from language typology. From a typological perspective, the relative egocentric interpretation of (1a) should be distinguished from the intrinsic egocentric interpretation of (1b) because the former does not occur, or occurs only marginally, in many languages whereas the latter appears to be available universally. Similarly, while intrinsic geocentric FoRs are available in all languages – including, as (2) demonstrates, in English – absolute ones are much more restricted. The only type of absolute FoR used in English we are aware of is the system of cardinal compass directions, and its use is largely restricted to geographic-scale space – descriptions such as ‘The ball is east of the chair’ are not used at all by most native speakers. In this chapter, we introduce a distinction between two anchoring types of FoRs which crosscuts both the psychological classification and the typological one. Both egocentric and geocentric FoRs can be either angular-anchored , in which case their axes are derived through transposition or abstraction from axes or gradients of the anchor, or head-anchored , in which case their axes point towards the anchor. Object-centered descriptions are by necessity angular-anchored. The descriptions in (1), in the context of their egocentric interpretations, involve angular-anchored FoRs. Examples of head- anchored egocentric descriptions are shown in (3): 3. a. The ball is toward me with respect to the chair. b. The ball is on my side of the chair. Geomorphic descriptions such as (2c) are angular-anchored, whereas landmark- based descriptions such as (2a) and (2b) are head-anchored. In the Nijmegen classification, head-anchored egocentric descriptions such as those in (3) are necessarily intrinsic, whereas angular-anchored egocentric descriptions can (and generally will) have both intrinsic and relative interpretations. Both angular-anchored and head-anchored geocentric FoRs can be intrinsic or absolute depending on whether their axes are merely transposed or abstracted from those of the anchor. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the three classifications: Table 1. Existing classifications of FoRs and anchoring type psych. Egocentric object- geocentric classific- centered ation typological intrinsic Relative intrinsic intrinsic absolute classific- ation anchoring ang.- head- ang.- head- ang.- head- ang.- head- ang.- head- type anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. anch. based” based” comment “direct” in N/A N/A “geomorphic” “landmark- Danziger 2010 example The ball is left/front me in of chair The ball is side on ofmy the chair The ball is lef/inthe of front chair The ball is left/infront the of the chair The ball is uphill/downriver from door/seaward from the chair The ball is toward the The ball is north of the chair N/A (locative descriptions) We intend the classification by anchoring type as complementary to the existing classifications of FoRs, not as replacing any of them. We show that the two anchoring types have distinct effects on the truth conditions of representations employing them: angular-anchored FoRs depend on the orientation of the anchor, whereas head-anchored FoRs depend on the location of the anchor. We examine the role of anchoring type in spatial descriptions of Seri and Yucatec, two indigenous languages of Mexico which in terms of the typological classification show a preference for intrinsic over relative and absolute FoRs. In both Seri and Yucatec, angular-anchored FoRs dominate in locative descriptions whereas head-anchored FoRs dominate in orientation descriptions. In contrast, in English, relative FoRs are the predominant choice in both types of spatial representations. We propose an explanation of these crosslinguistic differences in terms of two factors: the preference for intrinsic FoRs in Seri and Yucatec combined with the (language-independent) unavailability of object-centered FoRs in orientation descriptions. En passant, we offer a reanalysis of Terrill & Burenhult’s (2008) treatment of orientation as an alternative to FoRs and to the treatment of orientation in terms of metaphorical path functions in Jackendoff 1983. We begin our discussion with a background on previous research on FoRs and the role that orientation has played in these studies, as well as a discussion for the motivations of this study. We then introduce the methods we used for data collection, as well as some background information on the languages under study. The following section presents